Possibility of impossibility is not impossibility of possibility

By Prof Dr Sohail ansari "And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth: behold, in that are signs indeed for those who reflect."   (45: 13)

Fallacy of generalization

·        ‘That it is impossible to foretell the future is easily demonstrated.  For if a person should foresee being injured by a mill wheel on the next day, the person would cancel the trip to the mill and remain at home in bed.  Since the injury the next day by the wheel wouldn’t occur, it cannot in any way be said that the future has been foretold’

·       That it is impossible to foretell the future is easily demonstrated. Flood is predicted to be too damaging to the lives in villages. Government acts promptly and evacuate villages before the flood hits. Since damage to lives would not occur, it cannot in any way be said that the future has been foretold.

This inspiring declaration of the Qur'an stimulated the Muslims in the medieval period to research and investigate nature and natural phenomena that resulted in laying the foundation of practical science. The Greek science before them was mostly theoretical. One of the most remarkable things about the Qur'an is that it contains many Ayath (verses), which correctly describe natural phenomena in various disciplines such as human embryology, meteorology, astronomy, geology, and oceanography. Many of the processes and functions mentioned in the Qur'an have been discovered only recently. Some examples are the Big-Bang Theory, Sex Chromosomes, Sex determination, solar orbit, human embryology, etc. However the Qur'an is not meant   to be a "Textbook of Science".

Science is not a divine revelation but it provides a means for the welfare of man and to better understanding the creation of Allah (SWT), the natural phenomena and their function. In over 11,000 Ayath (verses), nearly 20 percent of the Qur'an there are references to natural phenomena.

Quotes:

“I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn’t work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness.”

— Emo Philips

Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you an automobile.”

— Billy Sunday

Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That’s why its called the present.”

— Alice Morse Earle

“Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive.”

— C. S. Lewis

“God created war so that Americans would learn geography.”

— Mark Twain

Difference Between Research Questions or Hypothesis

A research question is a highly focused question that addresses one concept or component of the hypothesis whereas the hypothesis itself is used to state the relationship between two variables.

The purpose of the study I am undertaking is to present non-experimental research and analysis on how an employee’s relationship with their supervisor(s) has an effect on overall morale. To this end, the central research question is “what effect does the supervisory environment in the workplace on overall employee morale?" While it should be noted that this is a topic that is still undergoing refinement and fine-tuning, the supporting, the supporting questions, that may be integrated with this still-broad research question will include more specific issues, for instance, “are incentives more valuable than a positive relationship with a supervisor in terms of motivating employees" or, as another example, “how does environment shape leadership styles?" The research question is one that can provide basis for an argument and some of the supporting questions lead to more focused answers to that question.

 Nine methods of research/identify and choose most aligned

Historical – A historical method involves an attempt to recreate the past objectively and accurately, often in relation to the tenability of a hypothesis. This method is often highly reliant on the work and/or observations of others and involves “detective work" (Isaac 45) as the researcher pieces together evidence to support the hypothesis. In gathering this evidence, the researcher must be diligent in making sure there is integrity in the data used through a systematic and disciplined approach to the primary and secondary sources, which provide the material. This method has much in common with a critical review of literature as it addresses many materials as the source of support for the hypothesis, with an internal and external critical structure that examines issues related to (and not limited to) motivations of the authors, limitations to the study, and other aspects of contamination to the materials used.

ten·a·ble

.

1. Capable of being maintained in argument; rationally defensible: a tenable theory.

2. Capable of being held against assault; defensible: a tenable outpost.

3. Capable of enduring or of being tolerated: a tenable situation.

Data integrity is the maintenance of, and the assurance of the accuracy and consistency of, data over its entire life-cycle, and is a critical aspect to the design, implementation and usage of any system which stores, processes, or retrieves data.

Data accuracy is one of the components of data quality. It refers to whether the data values stored for an object are the correct values. To be correct, a data values must be the right value and must be represented in a consistent and unambiguous form.

Data quality refers to the condition of a set of values of qualitative or quantitative variables. There are many definitions of data quality but data is generally considered high quality if it is "fit for [its] intended uses in operations, decision making and planning.".

1. The six core dimensions of data quality are: Completeness. Uniqueness. Timeliness. Validity. Accuracy. Consistency.

2.  COMPLETENESS. UNIQUENESS. TIMELINESS. VALIDITY. ACCURACY. CONSISTENCY.

3.  Title.

4.  Completeness.

5.  Definition.

6.  Reference.

7.  Measure.

8.  Scope.

(Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of acircular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

9.   MENTAL ILLNESS AND VIOLENT CRIMES

"The assumption that people with mental health issues are violent is deeply entrenched (cleaver-wielding 'lunatic' costumes, anyone?). It often leads to circular reasoning. How often have you heard people claim that committing a violent crime is proof of mental illness?

'Only a mentally ill person would kill someone, so anyone who kills someone is automatically mentally ill.' Leaving aside the vast majority of homicides which aren’t committed by people with mental problems, this isn’t evidence based." (Dean Burnett, "Stop Blaming Mental Illness for Violent Crimes." The Guardian[UK], June 21, 2016)

Descriptive – As its name suggests, this requires accurately presenting a full description of facets and features of the topic of interest or the population in question. Unlike many other forms of research methodologies, description is limited in that it does not make attempts to draw connections, parallels, and form predictions; it merely describes or makes a full compilation of the issue at hand. These can include reports, surveys, and other data that can be collected, analyzed and accurately and without conjecture or the need for argument, described.

 Before addressing more specific elements related to what comprises a theory, research question or hypothesis, it is useful to state what a theory actually is and how it can be differentiated from a simple idea or concept a scientist or researcher comes up with. A theory is more than simply an idea because the idea itself forms the hypothesis that in turn is used as the context for the experiments, tests, and gathering evidence that will go to prove or disprove the initial hypothesis.

A theory then is the positive benefits of proof and evidence and is the proven outcome of the subject of the hypothesis. In accordance with this definition, in order for a theory to be scientific, it must be have the burden of proof behind it and must have the evidence that was gathered after the original hypothesis supporting it. In other words, to be scientific, a theory must be repeatedly provable in a controlled testing environment over the span of time with little room for doubt at the end of the process.

 With the above definition in mind, theories are directly related to evidence and, in fact, could not even exist without ample evidence that can be reproduced by multiple testers. For a theory to be accepted, without tests that prove and give solid evidence to the original hypothesis that forms the basis of the theory, the theory is not scientifically valid and is thus reduced to being still in the stage of a hypothesis. Evidence is therefore the key element to the formulation of a proper theory as without it, there would be no way to prove or disprove a hypothesis. The reliability and validity of a theory hinges on the ability to produce repeatable and quantifiable evidence, as without it, there are no other ways to rationally and scientifically declare a theory valid.

Evaluating a theory is more than simply finding enough evidence to take an idea from the stage of hypothesis to theory, it is a complex and often time-consuming process called the scientific method. What the scientific method does is helps to develop a theory through stages, the first of which is the process of observation. During observation, generalizations are made about the idea in question and a series of limiters and known factors are delineated. An analysis of the observations yields the hypothesis, which will be the subject of rigorous tests (which is the next stage in the process) that set to offer evidence or show a lack thereof about the hypothesis. The results of these tests are recorded and offered for scientific review, often among peers in the same field of study or research and the hypothesis in question is then judged according the same scientific method in many places and contexts, and by many other researchers until it can be universally agreed upon or left in question due to a lack of evidence or evidence that is not repeatable or generally always the case. Again, the most important issue in evaluating a theory is the production of reliable evidence that can be supported by other researchers.